The U.S. economy is faltering, with budget deficits and a debt crisis that threaten our global leadership and the health of our military instrument of power.  President Obama and Congress must act to protect our security while the Pentagon shares some of the debt burden.

The recent political deal on the debt ceiling created a congressional “Super Committee” to find $1.5 trillion in savings by Nov. 23 or force mandatory across-the-board cuts, half from the Pentagon.  That result “would have devastating effects” on top of $350 billion in other cuts, warns Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to prepare the Pentagon for draconian cuts should the Super Committee fail to find the needed cuts.  But it isn’t too late for Obama to begin reshaping our military to become more efficient without hurting our security.

Obama should provide Panetta three sets of reshaping guidance to cut costs while preserving our security: cost-cutting guidelines, operational principles, and specific areas to consider when cutting.  

First, Obama’s cost-cutting guidelines should address nonnegotiable priorities, maintaining the all-volunteer force, eliminating unnecessary duplication, minimizing overseas basing, and consolidating military infrastructure at home.

The President should provide a tiered list of nonnegotiable defense guidelines, beginning with the most critical—U.S. survival against nuclear attack.  Our most critical defense missions must be fully funded, while those further down the President’s list receive less than full funding and we accept that risk.

He must issue directions to maintain the all-volunteer force because there is no viable substitute.  But history shows that significant downturns in military budgets have been followed by personnel problems (readiness, training and retention).  Already Panetta has warned more cuts would imperil the all-volunteer military and “would literally undercut our ability to put together the kind of strong national defense we need.”

Obama should direct the Pentagon to eliminate unnecessary duplication of forces and staffs.  Relook at the need for special forces in each service, the need for both Army and Marine ground forces, and consider consolidating specialties such as medical personnel under a single service.  And we don’t need a large staff for both service secretary and service chief of staff.  Then look at the glut of top personnel, such as the excessive number of deputy assistant secretaries of defense, and flag and general officers, the highest number ever.

The President should call for less overseas and stateside basing infrastructure.  For example, our military stations 80,000 personnel on 400 facilities in Europe.  Most of those personnel and their families could be brought home without jeopardizing our mission.  The same is true for our troops in South Korea and the thousands of Marines in Okinawa.

Reduce overseas facility redundancies.  Why do we need two air bases in the United Kingdom, Lakenheath and Mildenhall, which are eight miles apart?  For that matter, we have two air bases in Germany, Ramstein and Spangdahlem, which are 68 miles apart.  Many of our overseas facilities could either be consolidated or collocated with the host-nation militaries, not only saving money but truly building stronger partnerships.

The same concept applies to military infrastructure at home.  We dramatically reduced the number of facilities “owned” by the military over the past two decades by Base Realignment Commissions (BRAC).  But that process must change because, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the last BRAC saved very little.

It is clear we need more infrastructure reductions to cut costs.  For example, our military services have a combined 61 bases in California alone.  Each base is a costly enterprise that includes a staff and may support agencies.  Better use of fewer facilities is a must.

Second, Obama should direct the Pentagon to sustain defense effectiveness and contain costs by applying principles such as preservation of force structure, weapons procurement and modernization, and readiness, and keeping these in balance.  When they are out of balance, the military is either ill-equipped, lacking in capacity or not ready.  A good roles and missions analysis performed by nonpartisans without service, industry or congressional biases should produce recommendations that best balance the armed forces.

Another principle is maintaining the industrial base’s accountability.  After the Cold War​, Congress put the Pentagon on a strict procurement diet, but it kept the industrial base alive with infusions of billions of dollars for research and development (R&D).  Unfortunately, there was little accountability for that money.

This time, any R&D money must come with strings and strict accountability mechanisms.  Already we have seen multiple billions wasted on R&D during this buildup that will never support our troops or go into production.  We clearly need a new R&D paradigm.

Finally, the President should direct the Pentagon to consider certain organizations and systems for the chopping block.

Reorient our reserves to produce major savings.  The Pentagon activated much of our reserve component force to support operations in the wake of 9/11, which was incredibly expensive.  It is time the reserves return to their former status.

Many commissions and think-tank groups recommended killing or dramatically cutting the Joint Strike Fighter​ (JSF) program, the most expensive in our nation’s history.  Meanwhile, JSF costs continue to grow, capabilities slip or fall off, and deliveries of combat-capable aircraft face additional delays.  Justify the JSF or kill the program.

The services should reduce costs by using common aircraft.  For instance, why do the Air Force and Navy have very similar but different manufactured unmanned aerial vehicles—Global Hawks and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance?  With the budget downturn and future recapitalization and modernization requirements, this is an easy cut.

The space budget has gone virtually unnoticed and unscathed in this downturn.  The spending for space has more than doubled in this buildup while multibillion-dollar satellites can be destroyed by Chinese anti-satellite weapons for just a fraction of the cost.  This issue warrants close scrutiny.

The Navy has a 286-ship force to meet its global requirements, but Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, testified it needs a minimum of 313 ships to meet future requirements.  A larger fleet may be necessary, but the President should call for a reevaluation of our need for 11 carrier battle groups, which include 60 to 80 aircraft, and numerous ships to protect and support the carrier.

Carriers are becoming vulnerable to the emerging Chinese threat.  Last December, Adm. Robert Willard, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, told a Japanese newspaper that China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) known as an “aircraft carrier killer.”

Our government has 16 intelligence agencies mostly controlled by the Pentagon.  It is past time we eliminate intelligence duplication, which should begin with the top-heavy Defense Intelligence Agency​.

Time is short for Obama to act before the debt crisis threatens the viability of our military instrument of power.  These guidelines, principles and cuts provide the President a prudent way ahead that protects our security, improves Pentagon efficiency and significantly contributes to debt relief.

Candidate Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan boasted, “Yes we can.”  Then the new President promised a 2009 Egyptian audience “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims,” and in November 2009 he claimed, “We’ve restored America’s standing in the world.”  But Obama’s boast, his promise and his claim have crumbled across the Muslim world, and so has America’s influence.

Thirty-one months into Obama’s presidency, relations with the Muslim world are the worst ever.  Both Muslim public opinion and the deteriorating situation in most Islamic countries evidence anti-Americanism that screams, “No he can’t.”

Obama obviously can’t transform our relationship with the Muslim world, as evidenced by the state of affairs in three bellwether countries.

First, Egypt is a longstanding ally, but its January uprising puts that relationship in jeopardy.  Egyptian public opinion is very anti-American, and the coming election plus current events threaten to turn our bilateral relations on their head.

A July 2011 Zogby International survey of Egyptians found only 5% have a favorable opinion of America, lower than during the George W. Bush administration.  And a Pew Research survey taken this spring found that Egyptians overwhelmingly (82%) disapprove of Obama’s handling of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and a simple majority (52%) disapprove of the way Obama handled political change in the Middle East.

Those negative marks reflect displeasure with Obama’s flip-floppinig Egypt policy last January.  Initially he backed then-President Hosni Mubarak, but as public cries for change grew, Obama called for Mubarak to step down.  Then Obama made the strategic mistake of backing Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s unpopular vice president, to replace Mubarak.

Obama makes another mistake if he expects Egypt’s future democratically elected government to be pro-American.  Barry Rubin, the director of the Israel-based Global Research in International Affairs Center, argues in his daily blog that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood​, that nation’s largest political party, will earn 40% of the parliament’s seats this fall.  That political tsunami will result in a move to annul the peace treaty with Israel and impose laws that strictly follow the Koran, Islam’s holy book.

Egypt’s transformation to an Islamic state is already evident on several additional fronts.  The Obama administration tried to pour $65 million into Egypt this year to help organize secular political parties, but that effort sparked a powerful backlash from Cairo’s military government and the Muslim Brotherhood, which evidently colluded on plans for the future government.

Egypt also reversed past policy by improving relations with the Muslim Brotherhood’s ally and terror group Hamas, which rules the neighboring Gaza Strip.  Cairo now allows arms and money to flow into Gaza and refuses to pressure Hamas to make peace with Israel or stop its regular rocket attacks on nearby Jewish settlements.

On other Egyptian fronts there are increased attacks against Coptic Christians, murders of secularists, and more attacks by Islamists.  Recently the terror group Takfir wal-Hijra, a group aligned with al-Qaeda, attacked two police stations in el-Arish.

Second, Turkey is on a glide path to become an anti-American Islamist state.  Public opinion is already anti-American, but that neo-Ottoman government is purging its military, which until recently kept it on a secular path.

The 2011 Pew Research survey found only one in 10 Turks has a favorable opinion of the U.S., and President Obama​ gets especially low approval marks (12%) from Turks, down from 23% last year.  About two-thirds in Turkey (68%) disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular.

Turkey’s government is run by an Islamic party, the Justice and Development Party, that is Islamatizing the country.  Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rode to his third election victory this June with a 326-seat majority mandate vowing to rewrite that nation’s constitution to be pro-Islamic.  The military drafted the current constitution after a 1980 coup, but the military ceases to be a threat.

Erdogan purged the military of all but Islamic loyalists.  Last month, the top military commanders resigned in protest over the government’s arrest of hundreds of current and retired officers on trumped-up charges of plotting against the government, which elicited no response from the Obama administration.  Then Erdogan appointed commanders who support the regime’s Islamatization of Turkey.

Turkey’s Islamic transformation is beginning to affect everyday life.  The government pressured local officials to ban outdoor eating during the holy month of Ramadan, and there are reports of punishments for women wearing shorts in public and for smoking during Ramadan.  Expect Saudi Arabia-style religious police to soon appear on Turkish streets.

Juxtapose these internal changes with Ankara’s close relationship with Iran and how it has distanced itself from formerly close ally Israel after supporting Tehran in the Mavi Marmara affair.  That Turkish vessel took part in a flotilla of ships operated by Islamic activists seeking to confront the Israeli blockade over Gaza and was boarded and then diverted by Israeli forces in 2010.  Also, the Turkish Hurriyet Daily News reported in April that the Erdogan government is negotiating to open a Taliban office in Istanbul.

Obviously Turkey’s government is bolstering its Islamic credentials to gain standing in the Muslim world.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration ignores Turkey’s transformation, which bodes poorly for American influence.

Third, Pakistan, an erstwhile ally armed with 100 nuclear weapons, plays host to our al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban enemies and proliferates weapons of mass destruction.  Even though America has given Pakistan $20 billion in aid since 2001, our influence is limited, which is reflected in public opinion polls and a lack of support for ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

The 2011 Pew Research survey found that Pakistanis are very anti-American, perhaps in part because of actions such as our unannounced May 2 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound inside that country.  Only 11% of Pakistanis have a positive view of the U.S., a 6-point drop from a similar survey one year ago, and 54% believe their government cooperates too much with the U.S., for example by allowing America to launch terrorist-hunting drones from Pakistani airfields.

The U.S.-Pakistan relationship is one of mutual necessity.  America needs that nation’s ports and roads to move supplies to our troops in Afghanistan, and its help defeating the Taliban.  But Islamabad plays both sides of the Afghan conflict in order to keep American aid flowing, and ensure the instability of Afghanistan, the country that acts as a buffer against Pakistan’s archenemy, India.

Unfortunately, America’s dwindling influence in Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan is replicated across the Muslim world, either because of our policies or in spite of them.  For example, Obama supports the NATO bombing of Libya, yet its dictator Muammar Gaddafi​, is likely to be replaced by anti-American Islamist rebels.  Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, has so far killed 1,700 protesters, which “horrified” Obama.  But the President hasn’t called for the dictator to leave, nor will he, because America has no influence in Damascus either.

Our influence is tanking in Iraq after pouring years worth of blood and treasure into that country.  By mutual agreement we will leave Iraq this year, and then Iran will likely rush in to manipulate Baghdad and its oil.  Meanwhile, Iran continues its atomic arms program and hegemonic ways in spite of our tepid sanctions and meaningless rhetoric.

Obama’s Muslim policies are in shambles, our influence is mostly shot, and while it is sometimes necessary to do business with countries that oppose America, Islamic countries are especially unreliable when the most radical elements grab power.  That is why it is time to drop the pretense of compatibility, stop the flow of aid money, and assume tougher political and military policies.

President Barack Obama​’s plan to counter violent extremism is doomed because it puts more importance on protecting Muslim sensitivities than confronting the unvarnished truth about the homegrown jihadist threat.

Last week President Obama​ unveiled his strategy to counter the problem of violent extremism.  The eight-page paper titled “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” provides a three-pronged approach that includes community engagement, better training and counter-narratives.  But Obama’s plan defies reality by going to great pains to avoid singling out Muslims with what the administration calls a “more holistic approach.”

The anti-extremism plan’s “holistic approach” states “any solution that focuses on a single, current form of violent extremism, without regard to other threats, will fail to secure our country and community.”  No doubt there are numerous extremist threats, but the dominant threat is Islamic extremism, which deserves most of the administration’s attention.

Specifically, Sunni extremists were identified with about one-half of all terrorist attacks across the world in 2009, according to a 2010 U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center report.  Those attacks accounted for 62% of all terrorism-related deaths and the majority of the victims were Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The Islamic threat is now spreading to America’s shores as never before.

The incidences of homegrown Islamist terrorism have increased significantly over the past two years, a trend that is expected to continue.  Thirty-one American citizens or legal residents were arrested over the past two years in connection with 22 homegrown Islamist terrorism plots, according to the Congressional Research Service.  By comparison, there were just 21 plots over the previous eight years. 

The growth of domestic Islamic terrorism is attributed to the radicalization of American jihadist wannabes via online Internet efforts by Islamic ideologues like Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  Al-Awlaki uses videos and websites to indoctrinate American Muslims such as Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood, Tex., jihadist who communicated with Awlaki before his 2009 massacre that left 45 dead or wounded.

Fortunately the American people are waking up to the relationship between the Islamic religion and terrorism.  A spring 2011 Pew Research Center national survey found 40% agree, 42% disagree, on whether “the Islamic religion is more likely than others to encourage violence.”  A similar poll in 2002 found just 25% of those surveyed believed Islam encourages violence, while twice as many (51%) disagreed.

Even Obama’s anti-extremist plan acknowledges the Islam-terrorist nexus.  “Al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents represent the preeminent terrorist threat to our country,” states Obama, but then he cautions al-Qaeda not to “divide us” over religion.  Al-Qaeda wants to create a “backlash against Muslim Americans,” Obama wrote in his plan, to feed its propaganda that America is “at war against Islam.”  

Obama states Al-Qaeda would use the threatened “war against Islam” “backlash” to bolster its recruiting and “threaten our values of religious freedom and pluralism.”  Perhaps fear of the “backlash” is why Obama’s anti-extremism plan is so milquetoast regarding the Islamic threat.

Rather than explicitly target homegrown Islamic extremism, Obama’s plan offers “guiding principles” to address generalized “challenges of radicalization.”  He proposes networks of community officials address extremist threats using politically correct principles such as “enhance our understanding of the threat” and don’t “stigmatize or blame communities because of the actions of a handful.”

This is meaningless drivel, especially when one considers the urgency of the threat.  Obama then cites the Department of Justice’s “Comprehensive Gang Model” as a framework for mobilizing communities to fight extremists.  This model might work for criminals and maybe for environmental wackos, but there are significant differences between these groups and Islamists radicalized by a religion-based ideology and supported by a global Muslim community.

U.S. Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.) hosted a hearing this spring to address the problem of Islamic extremism in the Muslim American community.  King, the chairman for the Homeland Security Committee, said at the hearing, “But there are realities we cannot ignore.”

Those realities include teachings in Islam’s doctrinal texts: “The Koran and the Hadiths” (the Prophet Mohammad​’s views or stories).  They are the dogmatic basis for a “world view that postulates perpetual war facilitated by jihad and martyrdom,” according to William Gawthrop, a retired army officer and a supervisory intelligence analyst with the U.S. government, who wrote a July 2011 article titled “Dogmatic Basis of Jihad and Martyrdom” for Small Wars Journal.  Gawthrop’s extensively documented article outlines the stark teachings of Islamic dogma concerning the Muslim’s obligation to war against non-Muslims until they convert them or die.  “The ultimate goal of Islam is its domination over other ideologies, and the means for achieving that goal includes ‘jihad’ at the individual collective and personally obligatory level,” Gawthrop wrote.

The zakat, Islam’s obligatory alms-giving, is one of the pillars of Islam, and mandates contributions for those fighting for Allah (jihadists), according to Gawthrop.  A Muslim gets jihad credit for contributing his zakat to Islamic fighters by providing arms, equipment, money or care for a jihadist’s family. 

These Islamic obligations are powerful tools in the hands of groups like Al-Qaeda which seek an all powerful global caliphate (Islamic state).  They entice wannabe Islamists through ideological persuasion that includes hatred for the West and ends with acceptance of their jihad duty to commit violence which includes acts of martyrdom that promise salvation, pleasures in paradise, and Allah’s favor.

What should our anti-extremist plan include?  Clearly it should acknowledge that some of Islam’s mainline dogma—like my way or no way—are incompatible with pluralistic American ideals of freedom, equality and democracy.  The plan should also call on Muslim Americans to condemn violent jihad, refuse to give any portion of their zakat to violence-seeking jihadists, cooperate with community leaders to identify Muslims at risk of radicalization, and identify outsiders who seek to recruit wannabe jihadists.

Finally, Muslim Americans should fully integrate within our culture to include abandoning any pretense of imposing Sharia law.  America doesn’t want to be like the Middle East or modern Europe, which allows Islamic ghettos that eschew local culture and teach hate for the West.

Obama’s anti-extremism plan fails to confront the most dangerous extremist threat facing America, Islamic terrorism.  America must confront this threat with the truth about Islam, and Muslim Americans must embrace pluralism and eschew their religion’s dangerous teachings.

    The thwarted bombing by a U.S. Army jihadist outside Fort Hood in Texas intensifies fears there is a serious homegrown terrorist threat and raises questions about whether our politically correct (PC) military can identify internal threats.

    Last Wednesday, U.S. Army Private First Class Naser Jason Abdo, who had requested conscientious objector status because of his Muslim beliefs, allegedly planned to “get even” for unspecified mistreatment by detonating two shrapnel-packed bombs inside a restaurant frequented by soldiers near Fort Hood, according to ABC News.  But the AWOL soldier’s plans were thwarted by operational mistakes that led to his arrest.

    Police arrested Abdo at his Killeen, Tex., motel, where they found bomb-making materials, firearms and ammunition.  Officials told ABC News they also found a copy of an article titled, “How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,” a feature article from Inspire, the English-language magazine by the terror group Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

    On Friday Abdo was charged in a Waco, Tex., court with possession of an illegal firearm in addition to previous charges of possession of child pornography and going AWOL from his unit.  After his hearing, he yelled “Iraq 2006” and the name of an Iraqi girl who was raped and murdered in 2006 by U.S. soldiers.  Then as he was led from the courtroom, he shouted, “Nidal Hasan​!,” “Fort Hood!” and “2009!”

    Abdo’s case is another example of the danger of homegrown lone-wolf militants.  His shouted reference to “Nidal Hasan,” the jihadist charged with 13 murders and 32 attempted murders at Fort Hood in 2009, and the discovery of a copy of the Inspire article in his motel room suggest Abdo’s inspiration comes from Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Islamic cleric and AQAP leader.

    Al-Awlaki is believed to have inspired Hasan via e-mails, along with Umar Abdulmutallab, the Christmas 2009 underwear bomber of Northwest flight 253, who allegedly told U.S. officials he was in contact with al-Awlaki prior to that bombing.  Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty to attempting to detonate a bomb in Times Square in 2010, admitted he too was inspired by al-Awlaki and said after his sentencing, “War with Muslims has just begun … the defeat of the U.S. is imminent, God willing.”

    The incidence of homegrown terrorism has increased significantly in the past two years, according to a 2011 report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.  Specifically, from May 2009 to November 2010, there were 22 different homegrown plots by al-Qaeda, its affiliates and ideological allies.  By comparison, there were just 21 plots from September 2001 to May 2009.

    It is important to understand that most of the new terrorists were radicalized via the Internet.  A 2008 U.S. Senate report predicted homegrown terrorism inspired by violent Islamist extremist ideology would increase due to the focused online efforts of that ideology’s adherents.

    Internet-savvy jihadist wannabes learn the ideology’s core goals from their cyber mentors: a global caliphate that strives for Sharia (Islamic law) enforced by government and allegiance given to the Islamist community (the Ummah) and none else.  This network believes violence is justified to accomplish these goals and anyone who opposes it is an enemy.

    The New York City Police Department developed a four-part framework to understand how these homegrown Islamists are radicalized: pre-radicalization (acquire openness to the ideology), self-identification (adherents search for answers to their grievances), indoctrination (embrace ideology that the world is in a struggle against the West), and violence.  The violence stage is reached when members accept their duty to commit violence, seek training and plan attacks.

    As disconcerting as the surging threat of Internet-savvy homegrown Islamists may be, it is arguably more troubling that our military seems to be so PC that it can’t identify internal extremist threats.  That is especially troubling because over the past two years, eight Islamist attacks have been planned or carried out against military installations in the U.S., according to the Associated Press.

    But political correctness has swayed the military’s culture regarding all things Islamic, thus making identifying Islamic extremists less likely.  For example, the Pentagon’s 86-page review of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, “Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood,” doesn’t mention the words “Muslim,” “Islam,” “jihad,” “Sharia,” or “Koran,” even though Maj. Hasan initiated his slaughter with the scream “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” and he is a confirmed Islamist.  Worse, none of the report’s recommendations would have stopped Hasan’s attack or the one planned by Pfc. Abdo.

    Unfortunately the Fort Hood report is but one of many examples of the military’s PC blindness when it comes to criticizing Islam.  Last year, for example, Franklin Graham​, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, was invited to speak at the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer, but days prior to the event his invitation was withdrawn because he once described Islam as “evil.”  Army spokesman Gary Tallman told Fox News​ that Graham’s “presence at the event may be taken by some [read Muslims] as inappropriate for a government agency.”

    President Obama​’s advisers advanced this PC agenda by exorcising religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the U.S. National Security Strategy and directed the Pentagon to rewrite strategy documents that viewed Muslim nations through the lens of terror.  For example, the 128-page 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines the country’s terrorist threat without using the words “Islam,” “Islamic” or Islamist” a single time.

    President George W. Bush also kowtowed to Muslim sensibilities, which contributed to the Islamist-shy military culture.  Bush gave the White House its first Koran, hosted its first iftar (fast-breaking) dinner to celebrate Ramadan, and launched a Muslim outreach program giving “legitimacy” to some Islamic organizations that promote an ideology similar to al-Qaeda.

    Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England guided the Pentagon’s pro-Muslim campaign, which included hiring an Islamic aide, Hesham Islam, who had links with the radical Muslim Brotherhood​.  England cavorted with leaders of Islamic groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood.  His outreach program created military-wide cultural fear of being vilified as “Islamophobic,” which was evidenced by the case of Stephen Coughlin, a military intelligence analyst.

    Coughlin said he was hired to “… set aside the feel-good assumptions about Islam … and take an unblinkered look at the facts.”  But Coughlin was eventually sacked after a run-in with England’s Muslim aide, who labeled his views “Islamophobic,” according to Fox News.

    England also set out to recruit more Muslims.  He set up Muslim prayer rooms on military installations, hired imams and hosted an iftar for the Muslim American community and Muslim service members.  “There is a message here, and that is that Muslims and the Islamic religion are totally compatible with Western values,” England told the Christian Science Monitor.

    These pro-Muslim actions across two administrations created a military cultural firewall around Islam.  That was evident at the Fort Hood memorial service following the 2009 massacre.  Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, never mentioned the Islamist factor in the massacre but made statements expressing concern about “force protection,” the potential heightened “backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers” and the risk to Army “diversity.”

    The Pentagon must shed its blindness regarding violent Islamist extremism among service members like Abdo through strong policies and training, and by changing the PC culture of fear.  The military has become uncomfortable identifying and dealing with possible Islamists within its ranks out of fear of the political gaffe of racially profiling Muslims.

    Fortunately, Pfc. Abdo was stopped before he killed innocents.  Congress must demand an investigation before there is another incident, and insist this time on real solutions to the military’s PC culture.  And military leaders must be courageous as the Obama administration’s PC fusillades continue to erode our readiness.

Last Friday, President Obama ignored centuries of military experience to certify the armed forces are prepared to embrace open homosexuality “without harming readiness.”  Congress has the constitutional responsibility to reverse Obama’s politically inspired travesty or accept the damaging consequences.

Based on recommendations from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Obama certified to Congress that the military is prepared for repeal of the homosexual exclusion law, 10 USC § 654.  There is a 60-day waiting period before the repeal goes into effect, which means the law is void as of Sept. 20.  The 111th Democrat-controlled “lame-duck” Congress passed the repeal law in December without considering dissenting views.

“There’s no question in my mind that this is driven by politics and not military necessity,” said Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon , the newly retired commander of army forces in the Pacific, according to the Washington Times.  “Pushing this kind of social agenda in the military, especially during a time of war, is not appropriate.  We’re taking a great risk,” said Mixon.

Pentagon officials affirmed Mixon’s “great risk” assertion.  On April 7, U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee members asked Defense officials whether repealing the homosexual ban “would improve readiness or benefit the military in any way.”  The officials consistently testified, “I don’t know.”

That answer flies in the face of damaging evidence the 1993 Pentagon gave the 102nd Congress that subsequently wrote the tough homosexual exclusion law.  That Congress understood the consequences of lifting the military’s long-standing ban include less unit effectiveness, higher health costs, difficulty in recruiting, less retention and morale-busting threats to those who morally object to homosexuality.

The current Congress should reverse Obama’s travesty, which was exposed this April by a Defense Department Inspector General’s investigation of manipulated troop survey data leaked to the press to deceive the 111th Congress to gain repeal of the ban.  But because the Democrat-controlled Senate is expected to continue kowtowing to homosexuals, it will ignore the IG report as well as other problems with the Pentagon’s politically inspired review, and repeal will go forward.

Members of Congress who genuinely care about our armed forces must closely monitor at least five measures of the impact of open homosexuality for the military and be prepared to take action when pro-defense leaders return to power.

First, monitor damage to unit effectiveness in terms of cohesion. The 1993 Pentagon documented open homosexuality’s impact on cohesion—the trust and confidence that holds units together—stating it will “polarize and fragment the unit and destroy the bonding.”  Even reputable think tanks such as the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies came to a similar conclusion after conducting 125 focus groups to understand military culture.  It found “the vast majority of military personnel believe that homosexual men and women serving openly in the military would undermine cohesion.”

Second, monitor health readiness and costs.  Homosexuals are identified by the U.S. government as a cohort at high risk for sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS.  At the National HIV Prevention Conference in August 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that AIDS is 50 times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

The military already has battalions-worth of HIV infected personnel, and many contracted the virus via homosexual sex.  These personnel are non-deployable, soak up perhaps $80 million in HIV-related medical costs annually and must be replaced overseas by healthy troops.

Gay sex-related HIV/AIDS cases are far from the only health-readiness risk associated with homosexuals.  One of the nation’s leading AIDS researchers, Ronald Stall, told Infectious Disease News, “It may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today.  There are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men … substance abuse, partner violence, depression and childhood sexual abuse.”

Third, monitor the all-volunteer force’s recruiting.  Last year, the Pentagon met its recruiting goal in part because of high unemployment.  But the pool of eligible candidates is shrinking because nearly three-quarters of today’s high school graduates go on to college, compared with 50% in the 1980s.  Other factors such as obesity, which affects one in four American youth, make finding fully qualified recruits difficult.

The pool of eligible candidates will now shrink again because of significant other reasons, such as parents, especially those with strong moral views about homosexuality, discouraging eligible candidates.  The shrinking pool of candidates view is supported by a 2010 Rand Corporation study commissioned by the Obama administration that found repeal could affect enlisted recruitments by 7%.  Conversely, there is no evidence qualified homosexuals—a fraction barely 2% of the American public—will flood into the military to make up any shortfall.

The potential recruitment crisis was also highlighted by the nation’s most experienced military experts.  In March 2009, 1,167 retired flag and general officers signed a letter to Obama warning repeal “would undermine recruiting and retention … [and] have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to the military service, and eventually break the all-volunteer force.”

Fourth, monitor retention, which is already tough in wartime.  Expect repealing the homosexual law will encourage some to leave earlier than expected.  For example, the Pentagon’s 2010 survey found that up to 67% of Marine and Army combatants said repeal would negatively impact unit effectiveness.  But Obama’s report to Congress dismissed these negative scores to suggest combatants’ lack of service with homosexuals feeds the negativity.  Are anti-repeal combatants now more likely to leave?

Some troops will leave because Obama’s repeal plan requires heterosexuals to share bathing and living spaces with open homosexuals.  The Pentagon report states it “would stigmatize gay and lesbian service members” to segregate them. 

Finally, monitor the threat to those who morally object to homosexuality.  Many service members and their families have objections to homosexuality, including faith-based convictions, which will encourage them to leave the services.  That is why statements such as one attributed to Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick are so disturbing.

Last year, Bostick, who led a focus group for the Pentagon’s homosexual policy review process, said—according to a participant who wrote to the Washington Times—Christians who disagree with repeal “were bigots and racists and those who felt homosexuality was immoral should start looking for a new line of work.”  Bostick allegedly said once the homosexual policy is repealed, chaplains who preach against homosexuality would be treated as criminals.

Those are chilling words to chaplains, which explains why 21 chaplain endorsing agencies sent a letter to Congress asking that body to protect chaplains’ rights of conscience regarding homosexuality.  They fear chaplains might no longer be permitted to speak against homosexual behavior or counsel a service member confused about his sexuality, and conceivably, pressure will be placed upon them to marry homosexual couples.

The homosexual marriage issue already surfaced in a memo from Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, the Navy Chief of Chaplains.  His April 13 memo authorized same-sex marriages in Navy and Marine Corps facilities located in states where such unions are legal, according to Fox News .  That memo drew an immediate response from Rep. Todd Akin (R.-Mo.) and 62 other members of Congress, who said it was “unconscionable” the Navy would direct members to violate federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a bond between one man and one woman.

Obama’s certification of the 111th Congress’s “lame-duck” repeal of the homosexual law is a travesty that totally ignores contrary evidence and will cause irreversible damage to our armed forces.

President Barack Obama’s wrongheaded Iran strategy virtually guarantees long-term damaging economic, geopolitical and security consequences for America, the Middle East and the world.  He needs to wake up to the fact Iran is at war with America and we are losing—badly.

Consider four areas where Iran is winning and why Obama’s misguided strategy—sanctions, talk, and “hope” for a revolution inside Iran—is losing the war, the likely consequences, and what we ought to do.

First, Iran is rapidly expanding its influence across the Middle East by force, intimidation and persuasion.  Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Bloomberg.com that Iran “didn’t create the Arab Spring [the populist revolts against authoritarian rule sweeping the region] or start it, but they are clearly trying to exploit it wherever they can,” even in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This spring, Tehran increased its deadly aid to our enemies in both Iraq and Afghanistan to hurry our anticipated withdrawal.  “Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups, which are killing our troops,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  “There is no question they are shipping high-tech weapons in there,” the chairman said, “and the forensics proves that.”

Last week The Wall Street Journal reported that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) ships arms to our enemy in Afghanistan too.  For example, in February, the British forces in Afghanistan intercepted a shipment of sophisticated rockets near the Iranian border.  The Iranian-made rockets have an estimated range of about 13 miles, double the capability of most others in the Taliban’s arsenal.

The Arab Spring is better known for uprisings in countries such as Bahrain.  Iran sent its terrorist proxy Hezbollah to help Bahraini Shia organize an uprising to topple that Sunni-dominated government.  But Saudi Arabia intervened with 1,000 troops to help quell the unrest.  Last week, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparsat demanded Saudi Arabia withdraw its forces from Bahrain and “prepare the ground for regional cooperation.”  Surprisingly the Saudis withdrew some troops, likely because they know we are leaving the region and they must work with the hegemonic Persians.

Iranian officials are also “attempting to influence the political process in Egypt through efforts to connect with the Muslim Brotherhood,” testified Israel’s military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, before a Knesset committee, according to the Jerusalem Post.  Kochavi said the Brotherhood, a radical Islamic group, is pressing for elections to take place as soon as possible, because it is “the only group that’s ready for elections.”

A victory for the Muslim Brotherhood would be a blow to Israel (likely the peace treaty with Egypt would be abandoned), and the U.S. and Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan fear Egypt will emerge as a radical Islamist state like Iran.

The IRGC is also helping Syrian dictator President Bashar al-Assad to disperse demonstrations using lessons learned during Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution, the bloody period following Iran’s disputed presidential election.  Kochavi said, “Iran and Hezbollah are actively helping the Syrian regime in oppressing protesters.  They are transferring means for dispersing demonstrations, knowledge and technical aid.”

Second, Iran is expanding its violence to our doorstep—Latin America.  Last week, hearings in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives sounded alarms that Tehran is making significant inroads throughout Latin America .

Air Force Gen. Douglas Fraser, head of the U.S. Southern Command, told a Senate committee that Iran has aggressively expanded its network of embassies in the region and built numerous cultural centers and mosques in more than 15 countries.

Fraser testified that the Iranian-built mosques and cultural centers are teaching a radical brand of Islam and serve as recruiting centers for “extremist organizations” such as Hezbollah.

Iranian terrorist networks such as Hezbollah are growing at an alarming rate in Latin America, testified Ambassador Roger Noriega before the House Committee on Homeland Security.  “These networks cooperate to carry out fund-raising, money-laundering schemes, narcotics smuggling, proselytization, recruitment and training,” said Noriega, a fellow with the Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute.

Noriega cited published law enforcement and intelligence reports that indicate Latin American Hezbollah operatives “provided weapons and explosives training to drug trafficking organizations that operate along the U.S. border with Mexico and have sought to radicalize Muslim populations in several Mexican cities.”

Tehran’s Latin American activities also include basing ballistic missiles.  The German magazine Die Welt reported earlier this year that Tehran plans to base long-range Shahab-3 missiles in Venezuela that are capable of reaching the United States.  The basing agreement gives Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez permission to use the missiles in case of an “emergency” for “national needs.”

Third, Iran is rapidly growing its atomic arms and ballistic missile programs.  A May 2011 leaked United Nations Security Council report contains extensive new evidence that Iran has sidestepped international sanctions to build intercontinental ballistic missiles and develop a nuclear weapon.

Last week, Israel’s Gen. Kochavi told his government that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear explosive within two years.  Israeli and American intelligence communities have guessed wrong before about Iran’s bomb-making time line, but this time there is more credible evidence.

A second report dated May 24 from the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that its own inquiries show “the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities,” such as “producing uranium metal … into components relevant to a nuclear device” and “missile reentry vehicle redesign activities for a new payload assessed as being nuclear in nature.”

Iran is evidently making good progress with its missile program as well.  At the end of June, British Foreign Minister William Hague told the House of Commons in London that Iran tested “missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload.”  British intelligence indicated Tehran has tested the missile three times since October, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Finally, Iran continues evading international sanctions to support its expanding missile and nuclear weapons programs, but it also proliferates those technologies and conventional weapons to many undesirables.

Iran provides sophisticated weapons to Shiite militia in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, long-range rockets to its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, and boatloads of arms to the terror group Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Tehran also collaborates with North Korea on both missile and nuclear technologies, according to the IAEA’s report.  Iranians visit North Korea, and according to a May 16 report by the Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun, 200 North Koreans were sent to Iran to transfer military technology for developing Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

The Arab Spring appears to have created another proliferation opportunity.  Last week, Saeed Jalili, the secretary general of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Al-Ahram, an Egyptian newspaper, that his country is fully prepared to engage in “scientific and technical cooperation” with Egypt in the production of nuclear energy.  Iran previously “cooperated” with Syria to build a secret reactor, which was destroyed by Israeli jet fighters in September 2007.

The consequences of Obama’s inept Iran policy are becoming fearfully evident.  Middle East countries see America withdrawing, so they kowtow to Tehran’s demands, and countries in Latin America are aligning with the Persian rogue against the U.S.  Tehran’s atomic weapon-seeking activities have already earned Saudi Arabia’s promise to join the nuclear arms race if Iran doesn’t soon change course, which is unlikely.  And Iran is making the world a more dangerous place through its nonstop arms sales.

Obama needs a strategy with teeth, such as promising to keep a credible combat force in the Persian Gulf after our Iraq withdrawal to counter Iran and accelerate security cooperation to help troubled Arab Spring partners.  The U.S. must promise to destroy any Iranian missiles bound for Venezuela and pursue Iran’s terror proxies throughout Latin America.  We must destroy Tehran’s atomic weapons program now and crush every Iranian proliferation action.

We are losing the war with Iran because President Obama’s strategy is toothless and the long-term economic, geopolitical and security consequences are unacceptable.  Only a hard-hitting, robust policy of aggressive containment and military action can work.

A confluence of five indicators escalates risk to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.  President Obama must help mitigate the brewing crisis before it becomes a horrific nightmare.

First, Pakistani Islamist groups have become the world’s most significant terrorist threat and capable of obtaining nuclear weapons, according to a new report by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).  The Pakistani Neo-Taliban (PNT), the label given to the coalesced terrorist groups, has “conducted the most sophisticated, ambitious and operationally complex terrorist attacks in this century,” said Charles Blair, director of the Terrorism Analysis Project for FAS and author of the June 2011 report.

Blair states the PNT took root in Pakistan’s tribal areas after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.  “They [the Pakistanis] didn’t think that when the Taliban and al-Qaeda came into the tribal areas that they would target the Pakistani state,” Blair said.  But terrorist attacks inside Pakistan spiked at 1,916 incidents in 2009 and now Pakistan finds itself “in the midst of a civil war against many of these same forces.”

The PNT has become a “threat to the very existence of Pakistan” said U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus in 2010, and according to Blair the PNT has a global agenda and is a “highly capable group that can seek and will seek nuclear weapons.”

Second, the physical security of Pakistan’s atomic arsenal warrants close examination, especially in light of America’s undetected airborne raid on Osama bin Laden’s lair in Abbottabad on May 2.  What does this security breach say about Pakistan’s nuclear insecurities, especially with regard to non-state actors such as the PNT?

The FAS report identified several PNT attacks conducted on or near Pakistani nuclear facilities.  The most recent incident was against Pakistan’s naval station Mehran on May 22.  Militants stormed the base with rocket launchers and hand grenades and killed 10 troops.  That well-fortified facility is 15 miles from Masroor Air Base, a depot for nuclear weapons.

But a senior U.S. State Department official believes Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is safe from extremists, according to a report in the Indian Express.  “We don’t think there is any renewed concern … .  Those [nuclear] assets remain under much tighter security than what we saw in Pakistan’s naval base,” said Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake.

Blake’s confidence is ill-placed.  The Baltimore-based Maldon Institute reported on nuclear thefts tracked by Shaun Gregory, the director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford in Britain.  Gregory’s report identifies attacks at a nuclear missile storage facility, a nuclear air base, and the nuclear weapons complex at the Wah Cantonment, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons assembly point.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani insist their 100-odd atomic weapons are completely secure, and the U.S. has given Pakistan an estimated $100 million since 9/11 to harden its arsenal, train its people and improve surveillance.  But Gregory insists that despite “elaborate safeguards, empirical evidence points to a clear set of weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s nuclear safety and security arrangements.”

Third, one of those “vulnerabilities” is the cadre that oversees Pakistan’s atomic arsenal.  Pakistan’s military has traditionally been secular, but according to John McLaughlin, the former deputy director at the CIA, Pakistan’s security forces have become increasingly diverse.  There is evidence it is infiltrated at all levels by violent Islamists.

But Pakistani officials insist their nuclear personnel reliability program is stringent.  Retired Gen. Khaled Ahmed Kidwai, director general of the Strategic Plans Division, which oversees Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, told the New York Times, “Our security systems are foolproof.”

But how “foolproof” are Kidwai’s assurances if bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist, can successfully “hide” in a Pakistani military town for five years without detection?  Obviously that incident humiliated Pakistan’s security forces and prompted some housecleaning.

Last month, Pakistani Brig. Gen. Ali Khan was taken into custody over accusations of ties with Hizb ut-Tahrir, a prohibited organization bent on achieving a worldwide Islamic theocracy (caliphate).  Then on June 22, Pakistani officials interrogated four army majors with alleged connections to Khan.  Are these actions for show, or has Pakistan really become serious about Islamists among its security forces?

Apparently, some security officials with Islamist sympathies have escaped the housecleaning.  In late May, Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani journalist who covered national security and terrorism, was found dead, his face horribly beaten, according to the New York Times.  He reportedly received repeated threats from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s chief intelligence agency.

Shahzad disappeared from Islamabad two days after he published an article suggesting the militant attack at naval station Mehran was retaliation for the navy’s attempt to crack down on al-Qaeda militants in the armed forces.

Fourth, Pakistan is expanding its atomic arsenal at a much faster rate than any other nation.  A soon-to-be-published study by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, as reported by the Indian Press Online, states Pakistan could possess close to 200 atomic warheads within a decade that is more than Britain.

Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, Pakistan’s minister of defense, tried to justify the larger atomic arsenal even as the domestic Islamist threat grows.  He explained India, Pakistan’s archenemy, was more financially capable of carrying on a prolonged war than Pakistan, according to the news agency Press Trust of India.  Therefore, one must surmise, Pakistan will make up the difference with atomic arms.

Finally, Pakistan has a history of nuclear proliferation.  “Those things that I fear in the future,” Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Associated Press, include “the proliferation of that [Pakistani nuclear weapon] technology, and it’s the opportunity and the potential that it could fall into the hands of terrorists.”

Pakistan acknowledges its scientists passed sensitive nuclear information to members of al-Qaeda, and in the 1970s A. Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb, covertly sold nuclear information and equipment to Libya, North Korea and Iran.  But it feigned ignorance of Khan’s proliferation activities until 2003, even though those transactions required extensive military logistical support.

These indicators of a brewing nuclear crisis coincide with a very strained U.S.-Pakistan relationship.  For example, Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, told a May 2011 U.S. National Defense University audience that many Pakistanis consider America their “principal national security threat,” and, according to Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper, some Pakistani military officials believe the U.S. is determined to “denuclearize” their country.

President Obama must act quickly to mitigate Pakistan’s brewing nuclear crisis.  He should engage in a frank discussion with Pakistan’s senior leaders, offer positive inducements such as financial loans and aid, and security guarantees to leverage action to shore up nuclear surety.

But failing Pakistan’s immediate action, Obama must be prepared to curb aid and expand our operations against terrorist targets in Pakistan.  He must also be prepared to secure Pakistan’s atomic arsenal before it falls into the hands of Islamic jihadists with or without Islamabad’s cooperation, to prevent a hellish nuclear catastrophe in that country, the region and across the globe.

President Obama is guilty of national security malpractice because he replaced a proven missile defense system destined for Europe with one that will not work, but does appease Russia.  Also, Obama’s decision alienated a key ally who now refuses to cooperate, and at the same time Iran—our primary missile threat—is dangerously close to reaching atomic-tipped ballistic missile status.

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R.-Ala.), according to Aviation Weekly, said the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board concluded that Obama’s proposed missile defense system for Europe, which relies on achieving an early intercept capability, is “simply not credible.”  Portions of the board’s forthcoming study were unveiled during a Senate hearing on June 15.

Shelby said Obama’s promised early intercept capability “was the central justification … to cancel the third site in Europe.”  That site, which was proposed by President George W. Bush, would have deployed the same proven Boeing Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system used in Alaska and California.

However, “Now it looks like the nation may be left with an inadequate defense in Europe and no boost-phase intercept capability,” Shelby said.  And the Pentagon is not reevaluating Obama’s new Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) in light of the Pentagon board’s damaging report, according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Gates testified that Obama’s PAA “will give us a missile-defense capability several years earlier than would have been the case with the third site in Europe.”  He pointed out that “the third site in Europe was not going to happen because the Czech Republic was not going to approve the radar.”  But that was not necessarily the case two years ago, before Obama canceled the deal.

The Bush administration reached agreements to base the GMD in Poland (missile silos) and the Czech Republic (radars) in 2008.  A year later Obama canceled Bush’s plan, which evidently soiled relations with those nations, based on subsequent negative comments in the media.  But the cancellation evidently pleased the Russians, who charged the Bush plan was directed primarily against them.  And Obama’s cancellation sufficiently appeased Moscow to earn him a quid pro quo campaign-promise achievement, the Russia-U.S. new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( START II), which was signed in April 2010.

At the time Obama canceled the Bush plan, he pledged to consider both Poland and the Czech Republic for future basing facilities under his new plan.  But last week Czech Defense Minister Alexander Vondra said his country is stepping away from Obama’s new plan because it is frustrated by its minor role, which may not be the whole story, especially given Russia’s renewed influence among Western Europeans.

To make matters worse for those concerned about missile defense, Iran is racing toward the development of an atomic-tipped ballistic missile arsenal in spite of international efforts to isolate the rogue.  Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that “Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons.”  Tehran also continues to “expand the scale, reach and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload,” Clapper said.

The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), draws a similar conclusion with its report dated May 24, 2011.  The nine-page report states that its own inquiries show “the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

The IAEA also reports that Iran has increased production of low-enriched uranium (LEU) and continues to enrich uranium to the 20% level, representing 85% of the work needed to produce weapons-grade material.  It already has enough LEU, if further enriched, for several bombs, and more is being produced daily.  And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted to the IAEA that his country’s nuclear project has “no brake and no reverse gear.”

Consider four consequences of Obama’s decision to cancel Bush’s European-based GMD in light of these new developments.

First, America is less safe because Obama discarded a tested system for one still on the drawing board that may never work.  Admittedly, the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), linked to the shipboard Aegis radar system, which is part of Obama’s phased approach, is a proven anti-missile system, but not a replacement for the GMD (long-range intercept) or ready for the promised early intercept mission.  Rather, Obama’s plan relies on the creation of a souped-up variant of the SM-3 called Block IIB that isn’t expected to be available until 2020, if ever.

Second, Obama’s kowtowing to Russia on missile defense guarantees a stalemate and long-term missile vulnerability.  The Russians will never be satisfied with an American anti-missile system in Europe.  Unless Moscow can call the shots, which Washington must refuse.  Besides, last week, Russia’s presidential envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, dismissed the U.S. claim that Iran poses a missile threat to Europe.

Third, Iran will take advantage of our new system-development time to further refine its ballistic-missile capability.  Tehran has already accelerated its missile development efforts.  In February 2009, Iran launched its first satellite, the Omid, which used a two-stage space rocket.  At the time, U.S. officials admitted “grave concern” over that achievement because the same capabilities could be applied toward developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of targeting the U.S.

The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative states that Iran’s now twice-successful Safir satellite launch vehicle, if converted into a ballistic missile, would likely be able to carry a 1,100-pound warhead 1,875 miles (reaching Berlin), or a 2,200-pound warhead approximately 1,250 miles (covering the entire Middle East).  Put that capability into perspective.

The warhead’s weight and explosive yield depend on the technology used.  The “Fat Man” atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 weighed 10,300 pounds and produced an explosive yield of 21 kilotons.  By comparison, modern atomic weapons can weigh just a few hundred pounds and produce an explosive yield equal to hundreds of kilotons.

Today, Iran is experimenting with all the technologies necessary to produce a powerful nuclear warhead, and the missiles to deliver those weapons.  The question for the West is not whether, but when, Iran will field such a weapon.

Finally, “There is a real risk that Iran’s nuclear program will prompt other countries to pursue nuclear options,” National Intelligence Director Clapper testified.  That risk is rapidly becoming reality.  At least 10 Middle East countries have plans to build nuclear power plants.  The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council set up a nuclear exploratory commission in 2007, and Saudi Arabia is working with the U.S. to obtain “a nuclear capacity.”  Remember, spent reactor fuel, which includes plutonium after chemical processing, can be used to fabricate the heart of a nuclear weapon.

Obama’s decision to scrap a proven for an unproven missile defense system is evidence of national security malpractice.  That decision must be reversed, starting with a clear-eyed assessment of the Iranian threat, our allies’ willingness to cooperate on a missile defense system, and our proven technological capabilities in view of the Pentagon’s forthcoming Defense Science Board report.

President Obama’s Afghan war strategy is a failure, and now his administration is scrambling to find a course of action that avoids igniting a Central Asian nightmare while protecting him politically. 

The nightmare scenario occurs if Western forces prematurely abandon Kabul to a Taliban-dominated government that reverts to its old ways.  That could fuel Islamic extremism across the entire region, especially in next-door nuclear-armed Pakistan .  

The alternative extreme is to stay the course in Afghanistan.  That could mean decades of fighting, which Obama knows is politically untenable.  Nearly 60% of Americans want the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll.  Obama understands his reelection may hang in the balance. 

He also understands there might be enough political support for a middle-ground exit strategy that avoids the nightmare scenario.  The quest to find that fresh strategy explains the raging debate over Obama’s promise to begin withdrawing troops this July.  He made that promise in December 2009 when he first announced his war strategy.

It appears he is using that promise as an opportunity to revise his three-part strategy.  Specifically, last week he set the stage for a change by claiming the U.S. has achieved “a big chunk” of its strategic objectives, inluding killing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.  Therefore it is time the Afghans “take more responsibility,” Obama said, but he knows the Afghans are not ready because of the facts on the ground.

The first part of Obama’s 2009 strategy was a 30,000-troop surge to secure key population centers in that Texas-sized country.  For the past year, our 100,000 troops secured centers in the south and east, but those gains are tenuous because the Taliban forces slip away, find safe harbor and then attack targets of opportunity.

The flip side of our tenuous security gains is Obama’s plan to simultaneously strengthen “the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.”  Unfortunately, Afghan forces are not ready to “lead,” and won’t be by 2014 when Obama says the security turnover will be completed.

Their unreadiness is illustrated by our handover of swaths of the Nuristan and Kunar provinces in eastern Afghanistan.  Those forces are unable to hold back the Taliban, according to a senior aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who spoke with the London Daily Telegraph last week.  This shouldn’t be a surprise to Obama.

Afghan security problems are legion, and they will need assistance for many years ahead.  A 2011 Government Accountability Office report on Afghan security forces found serious challenges, including poor leadership and high rates of attrition, absenteeism and illiteracy that inhibit training.  The agency said that as of last fall, no Afghan army unit was assessed as capable of conducting its mission independent of coalition assistance, and that “international backing of the ANA [Afghan National Army] will be needed for years to come—at least a decade.”

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, the commander of NATO training in Afghanistan, has confirmed the need for a long-haul commitment, National Public Radio reported.  Caldwell’s NATO boss told him “that the training mission will be there well past 2014.”  The U.S. funds 92% of Afghan training, which runs to $11 billion this year.

The second part of Obama’s failing strategy is building “a more effective civilian” effort, which includes a self-sustaining economy and a less corrupt Afghan government that enjoys the population’s trust.  Both aspirations are many years away.

Afghanistan’s serious corruption problem was the topic de jour at Ryan Crocker’s confirmation hearing last week.  He is President Obama’s choice to be the new ambassador to Afghanistan.  Crocker soberly testified that “enormous challenges remain.  Governance, rule of law, including corruption, which undermines the credibility of the Afghan state …” 

Crocker must know Obama’s strategy calls for a credible Afghan government that has the support of the people and is capable of administering the country after Western forces leave.  But a U.S. government assessment found that “pervasive, entrenched and systemic corruption” permeates Afghanistan and that country is ranked as the second-most-corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International’s corruption perception index.

Also, Afghanistan’s economy is totally dependent on foreign spending.  The World Bank estimates that 97% of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is derived from spending related to the international military and donor community presence.  The country, according to a June 2011 U.S. Senate report on aid to Afghanistan, could sink into a severe economic depression when foreign troops leave in 2014 “unless the proper planning begins now.”

Part of Afghan’s economic problem is how the U.S. spends its aid money.  The Senate report indicates most of the $18.8 billion in U.S. aid to Afghanistan went to short-term stabilization programs instead of longer-term development projects that create enduring jobs.  The report questions the “efficacy of using aid as a stabilization tool” and suggests the “unintended consequences [such as corruption] of pumping large amounts of money into a war zone cannot be underestimated.” 

The third leg of Obama’s strategy is “the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership in Pakistan.”  He continued, “We are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust.”  But Pakistan has not earned America’s trust.  

Pakistan welcomes our aid dollars, but tepidly fights Taliban insurgents who use that country as a sanctuary, and it turns a blind eye to known terrorists such as Osama bin Laden.  It complains about our drone attacks on known terrorist lairs and just recently asked 100 U.S. military trainers tasked with helping that the army cope with its insurgency to leave.  

Over the weekend, CIA Director Leon Panetta was in Islamabad to rebuild a trusting, constructive relationship with Pakistan.  But, according to the Washington Post, recently the U.S. provided Pakistan with the specific locations of insurgent bomb-making factories only to see the militants learn their cover had been blown and quickly vacate. 

Clearly Obama’s Afghan war strategy is a failure if success means handing over the fight to a fully ready Afghan partner beginning next month.   But because we lack the will to continue that fight for decades, it behooves us to change course to help the region avoid an Islamic extremist nightmare scenario.

Obama’s middle-ground strategy must begin with an announcement that all American forces will leave by July 2014, and the first installment will be 10,000 forces next month.  This will get Kabul and Islamabad’s attention that we are leaving, but with the following caveats.

Our strategy should be a transition to a counterterrorism fight over the next six months, and in the meantime, we should hand over the security of the population centers to Afghan forces.  We can continue our aid program to help seed real jobs, and security forces training should be limited to the current force.  We must expect the Kabul government to work with Pakistan to negotiate an end to hostilities with the Taliban enemy.  Finally, Pakistan must be on notice that we are leaving, but that we will continue to assist if they cooperate with the Afghans and aggressively pursue terrorists and insurgents.

Obama must end America’s role in the Afghan war.  Pouring more blood and treasure into that fight has no clear nexus with American interests.  This middle-ground strategy provides enough time to avoid the nightmare scenario if the Afghans and Pakistanis get serious.

President Barack Obama’s strategy of denying Iran access to atomic-weapons isn’t having its intended effect.  Rather Tehran is dangerously close to possessing nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles which will fuel a regional arms race and could spark another war.  It is time to issue Iran an ultimatum.

Last week President Obama vowed to maintain pressure on Iran.  On May 22 he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee “We’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime” and then he promised “We remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

But evidence is mounting that Obama’s talk and sanctions strategy isn’t stopping Tehran’s march to nuclear arms status.  Consider what our intelligence community, the United Nations and others say about Iran’s escalating atomic missile program.

James Clapper, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, testified “Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon” … “has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons” and “it continues to expand the scale, reach and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload.”

Clapper’s warning is validated by two new reports from the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA reports it has new information regarding Tehran’s work on a nuclear warhead for a missile.  The nine page report dated May 24 states its own inquiries showed “the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

The IAEA indicates since its last report this February it has “received further information” related to these undisclosed military related activities, which it is currently assessing.  Those concerns prompted IAEA director Yukiya Amano to demand of Iran “prompt access to relevant locations, equipment, documentation, and persons.”

Director Amano is especially concerned about seven weapons-related activities.  The list includes experiments involving the explosive compression of uranium deuteride to produce a short burst of neutrons (a possible atomic trigger like that used by the Chinese), uranium conversion to produce uranium metal and missile re-entry vehicle redesign activities.
Harold Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, told the New York Times the compression of uranium deuteride suggested work on an atomic trigger.  “I don’t know of any peaceful uses [for uranium deuteride],” Agnew said.

Besides the weapons activities the UN report confirmed Iran continues uranium enrichment operations contrary to Security Council prohibitions.  It continues to increase its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (3.5% uranium-235) to 9,130 pounds and so far 125 pounds of 20% enriched uranium.  The regime’s 8,000 known uranium enriching centrifuges continue to produce more and richer outputs every day.

Highly enriched uranium, the fissile fuel used in nuclear weapons, usually contains at least 90% concentration of uranium-235.  Currently Iran has enough low-enriched uranium to produce four atomic bombs if it is further enriched.  By comparison America’s very first uranium bomb, Little Boy in 1945, used 141 pounds of 80% enriched uranium-235.

The second UN report was leaked two weeks ago.  That report by a panel of experts monitoring arms proliferation points an accusing finger at Iran.  It states “Iran’s circumvention of sanctions across all areas is willful and continuing.”  UN sanctions ban trading items that contribute to uranium enrichment and conventional arms like missiles.

The panel discovered prohibited activities being carried out by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps using a network of foreign suppliers and front companies.  For example, South Korea seized rolls of phosphor bronze mesh wire bound for Iran which, according to the UN panel, could be used for Tehran’s heavy water reactor – a source for weapons grade plutonium.  Singapore intercepted 302 barrels of aluminum powder from China which the panel said could be used to produce 100 tons of rocket propellant.

But Iran’s worst proliferation partner is fellow rogue regime North Korea.  “Prohibited ballistic missile-related items are suspected to have been transferred between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran on regular scheduled flights of Air Koryo and Iran Air,” the UN report said.

The Iran-North Korea collaboration was evident last October at a military parade staged in Pyongyang at which North Korea unveiled its new Nodong missile.  The Nodong warhead has “a strong design similarity with the Iranian Shahab 3 triconic warhead,” according to Reuter’s news service.   But Iranian officials reject the allegation it collaborates with North Korea.

Iran’s foreign ministry, according to Fars News Agency, disputes the UN report, arguing that Tehran does not need outside help.  But that statement is contradicted by a report in the May 16 edition of the Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun that contends North Korea recently sent more than 200 people to Iran to transfer military technology for developing Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

Iran and North Korea are motivated to collaborate by the mutually held view that atomic-tipped ballistic missiles are their best deterrent from regime change led by the U.S.  That line of thought is voiced by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic weapon, who wrote in Newsweek “Had Iraq and Libya been nuclear powers, they wouldn’t have been destroyed in the way we have seen recently.”

That view likely prompted both nations to launch aggressive programs to field survivable mobile atomic weapons and build hardened and deeply buried facilities to hide those systems.  Elbridge Colby, a research analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses and an expert advisor to the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, warns that states like Iran and North Korea are locating their “most valued assets underground in facilities effectively immune from missile, air, or naval attack.” Colby surmises these states armed with mobile atomic weapons could hold “the threat of nuclear attack over Washington to deter any attempt to disarm them or occupy their countries.”

Iran’s rapidly emerging threat is evidently credible which begs the question: Do we have the right strategy to deny the rogue atomic weapons?

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized President Obama for being too soft on Iran, urging him to deal with a “looming and coming challenge” from the Islamic Republic, according to Agence France-Presse. “At some point,” Blair said, “we have to get our head out of the sand and understand they [Iran] are going to carry on with this [nuclear weapons program].”
What then should be Obama’s strategy to wean Iran from its atomic ambitions?  Clearly the status quo – talks, sanctions, incentives – is not working.  That leaves two options.

We can accept a nuclear-armed Iran and the risks that create for the region and America’s global interests.  Otherwise, as Blair said, “they’ll carry on doing it [seeking atomic weapons] unless they are met by the requisite determination and if necessary, force.”

Obama’s strategy should include an ultimatum backed by visible attack preparations by a joint force that could conceivably topple the regime, achieve our political objectives and allow the IAEA unencumbered access to suspect nuclear facilities.  Failing that, force will be ready and should be applied.